Linux-Advocacy Digest #109, Volume #31 Fri, 29 Dec 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux lacks ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows Stability ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux, it is great. (spicerun)
Re: Why Advocacy? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows Stability (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows Stability (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:08:36 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Minimum wage for a programmer is out of the question do not take it.
> > You'd be better off making more money at McDonalds.
>
> I'd agree, but with the following exceptions:
>
> 1) If the company is extremely prestigious and has a low churn rate.
>
> 2) If the training leads to a valuable certification.
Define "valuable certification"
>
> Does this job have the promise of a career, or is it simply a resume'
> enhancer? Everybody here once worked at either Intel, Microsoft, or
> Boeing. These companies go through I/T employees like grass through a
> goose; as far as our HR is concerned you may as well have worked at Taco
> Time on summer break. On the other hand, interning at Cisco and coming
> out of the experience with a CCIE... I'd be willing to work for minimum
> wage for that opportunity.
In that case, it's not the CCIE piece of paper that's 'valuable'...
it's the time at Cisco...
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:10:08 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t9S26.52469$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92fhsp$vie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > And for all you windows users out there, it took me less time to
install
> > > the linux nvidia drivers than the windows ones since I didn't have to
> > > reboot :)
> >
> > That's good. But you know, I'll take the 30 seconds it takes to reboot
the
> > winbox after a driver install over the 20 seconds it takes everytime I
> > launch Netscape to get a url box.
>
> I just leave my Netscape running for months. Why shut it down at all?
Because it craves memory like there is no tomorrow?
Because it's reknown for its ability to crush for the slightest offence?
Because it's one of those applications that can lock the computer tighter
than a fly's ass?
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VB job offer, and ensuing dilemma
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:16:02 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <92gqod$c9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > Minimum wage for a programmer is out of the question do not take it.
> > > You'd be better off making more money at McDonalds.
Minimum wage is an insult. Even with introductory skills, you should
be able to make $10/hour in a low-cost-of-living city in the midwest.
Significantly higher on the coasts.
> >
> > I'd agree, but with the following exceptions:
> >
> > 1) If the company is extremely prestigious and has a low churn rate.
>
> Company's small. This isn't a complete strike against them, because I'd
> like to work for a small company, and would take a pay cut to do it if
> I believed in the people and the technology. Let's just say that if
> these guys were offering me minimum wage to do C/GTK+ front-ends for
> Postgresql, I'd be all over it in two seconds. But VB/ASP for SQL
> Server? At minimum wage? I dunno...
>
> > 2) If the training leads to a valuable certification.
> >
> > Does this job have the promise of a career, or is it simply a resume'
> > enhancer?
>
> Well, they're looking for someone long term to fit into their company.
> They're a small outfit right now, and looking to grow. They want
> someone in-house to do this work instead of contracting out.
>
> > On the other hand, interning at Cisco and coming out of the
> > experience with a CCIE... I'd be willing to work for minimum wage for
> > that opportunity.
>
> Well, I won't be leaving with any sort of certification, but they're
> not looking for anyone who's going to leave.
Nobody is. The "perfect employee" is one who would be willing to
work for minimum wage until retirement...
> Namely, I'll just have a
> good idea of things they'll want me to be able to do. At the moment, it
> looks like they want a catch-all programmer who can handle different
> sorts of projects, because they're not necessarily going to be doing
> the same sort of thing every time. At the moment they're very excited
> about .NET
For what reasons?
> (not sure if that should be another warning flare going off,
> although I'm sure the good, unbiased folks on this board could give
> some insight ;),
I don't see .NET providing an advantage to ANY company except
Microsoft. Software companies that want to sell the *service*
of N months' usage of their software already do it with license
files. If they want to be *sure* that nobody is trying to game
the system by back-dating the clock on the system, they can just
have the software refer to a publicly available time/date server
(either within the company or without, so long as the server can
be audited at any time.)
> so if nothing else it can be said that it would
> probably be a never-ending learning opportunity.
>
> I don't know... I just don't know...
The more details you give us, the worse it's beginnig to sound.
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:21:16 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It is funny, several years ago I had to do some research about what the
> right OS should be for an embedded system. I had originally concluded
> that it should be FreeBSD, but abandoned that for Linux in favor of
> third party support.
Which support is that? The only thing I can think of is a few binary only
drivers.
> Today, if one looks at Linux, it is simply amazing at what is available
> for no cost.
>
> PostgreSQL, a full relational, enterprise ready SQL database.
> Star Office, a full featured office packages.
> Full TCP/IP networking support.
> Apache, a world class web server.
> PHP, a world class web scripting language.
> KDE2, a very good desktop environment.
> GCC, a world class C/C++ compiler.
> Countless languages and utilities.
> CD ROM creation utilities.
> MP3 generation.
All of these are available under FreeBSD as well. What's your point?
> Too many programs to mention. All free. Sweet!
Many of those programs are also available on Windows.
> Windows may have more games, and support a few pieces of hardware that
> Linux does not, but Linux does almost everything, is free, and is more
> stable.
It comes down to cost again. Linux will self-destruct as a commercial
entity unless it can start generating revenues at a much higher rate.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:22:46 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92gu5k$164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And I have to be picky about MP3 encoding being free. Actually there are
> royalties to be paid (the format is patented). We will only be truly able
> to encode high quality/highly compressed audio with complete freedom
> when Ogg Vorbis is complete:
It should be noted that the MP3 patent owners believe that Vorbis still
violates it's patents. There will probably be a lengthy court battle over
this when Vorbis releases it.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:21:54 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:44
> [...]
> >I understood it, well enough. So much tweaking and fiddling had to be
done
> >with the code it generated, it kind of defeated the purpose of generating
it
> >in the first place. Clarion Developer actually did a far better job than
> >DBIV in that area. Neither did a great job.
>
> But that's the point; using the "GUI" application builder and using the
> automatic code generator weren't as tied together as you though. Hell,
> dBase IV didn't even need to use that GUI; one command would drop you
> into the command-line, classic environment. Automatic application
> generators are obviously useless for anything but the most simplistic
> applications.
As I said, the Application Generator's output defeated the purpose of having
it to begin with. The development time would have been better spent
improving the internals. As a consequence, you had a release that was less
reliable than the previous version. As I mentioned above, Clarion ran
circles around it for a fraction of the cost.
PS: I'm fully aware of DBIV's relationship with the Application Generator,
thank you.
>
> >> It was more buggy than dBase III, but only about
> >> as buggy as dBase III+; new versions of software do tend to have new
> >> bugs. In the rush to FUD dBase to death, a lot was made of its
> >> 'bugginess', but it was not even really a particularly troublesome
> >> product.
> >
> >Not so much troublesome as mediocre. III was much better, IMHO.
>
> So it was a new version, and you wish to condemn it with feint praise,
> instead of FUD it to death.
I call them simply as I see them. With what Ashton Tate was charging, one
should have expected much more. Again, spending time on a feature of dubious
worth to the detriment of nuts and bolts is something worth complaining
about. Its' one of my pet Microsoft peeves too.
>
> >> Though this was in the days before Microsoft lowered
> >> everyone's expectations of software so grievously, so there certainly
> >> was plenty to complain about.
> >
> ><LOL>
> >That's true! We were used to getting what we were promised back then.
What
> >the hell happened?
>
> As long as the monopoly remained DOS, most people didn't even realize it
> was anti-competitive. Once MS had to start bundling things and
> integrating to fend off every potential partial alternative which might
> limit the power of their OS monopoly, things started going down-hill
> VERY fast. Unfortunately, it was also during the time when most new
> users were just learning about computers.
Timing is everything, true. One thing I'll say for Gates, his software may
"blow chunks" but he's one hell of a businessman.
>
> >> >dBase IV was the straw that eventually put Aston Tate at the bottom of
> >> >the sea.
> >>
> >> Microsoft is what put dBase at the bottom of the sea, along with
> >> WordPerfect and Lotus 123, using FUD and churn and predatory
development
> >> and bundling with WinDOS.
> >
> >Ashton Tate kind of brought themselves to the edge of the cliff, Gates &
Co.
> >simply pushed. There wasn't enough room in the market for two mediocre
> >database platforms.
>
> This is software; there's room for an almost unlimited number of
> alternatives for anything. This 'natural software monopoly' thing is
> just a short-cut assumption to avoid having to think too hard. I'm not
> trying to insult you by pointing that out, I'm just trying to say that
> it is very common, and isn't accurate, consistent, or practical.
>
In an ideal world your case would be true. This, however, isn't an ideal
world.
The natural tendency in a capitalistic environment is towards monopoly.
Period.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:27:44 -0600
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, it's not quite as simple as that. If you had a systen with 4MB of
> memory, you could use Linux on it. To use it to run Windows, you'd
> need to spend another $45, and for what gain?
Not true. You can use Windows in 4M. It works. It'll be slow, but then so
will Linux in 4M if you plan to run any apps.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:30:41 -0600
"Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:vRQ26.24038
> > IBM has never been able to program their way out of a wet paper bag...
>
> I would have to disagree. No OS still can match the WPS or SOM yet and
that
> was back in 1992.
Athena looks quite promising from the perspective of the WPS. It should be
quite interesting to see it develop.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:22:36 GMT
Why the hell not?
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fhU26.52499$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:EIP26.67661$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I was orignially speaking that it should. Why can't Linuxconf have
> XFree86
> > extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME and KDE
through
> > Linuxconf?
> >
> > Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
>
> Why just those? Why not every window manager known to man?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:23:58 GMT
Those "dills" are compiled for the 2000/NT platform, not the 95/Win32
platform.
The "dills" wouldn't work.
Same goes with copying Libc6 to a system that was unable to handle the specs
of the library platform.
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oAS26.52476$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92fkbe$br0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "steve@x" wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > so far these are the suggestions given to install one simple
> > application
> > > > on linux:
> > >
> > > You forgot the main suggestion:
> > >
> > > Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
> > >
> > > say 7.0?
> >
> > Yet when the winvocates say "upgrade to the latest version" when
> > someone bitches about some problem or another, they get slammed for
> > it. Why?
>
> With windows, the 'latest version' is never an upgrade - you buy a new
> copy - and then all the apps separately.
>
> > This is touted as one of the advantages of Linux - break free of the
> > needless upgrade cycle, yet the instant someone has a problem, what are
> > 90% of the solutions offered? Upgrade!
>
> With free software, there is never a good reason to run less than the
best.
> The upgrade issue being discussed here was a problem caused
> by trying to mix different versions of things. A complete upgrade
> would have fixed it cleanly. It is the sort of problem you would
> see if you tried to copy a few 'upgraded' dlls from your win2k box
> over to a win95 system.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:28:39 +0200
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wcV26.85364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why the hell not?
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fhU26.52499$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:EIP26.67661$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I was orignially speaking that it should. Why can't Linuxconf have
> > XFree86
> > > extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME and KDE
> through
> > > Linuxconf?
> > >
> > > Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
> >
> > Why just those? Why not every window manager known to man?
Why not make a file like RPM, so each application can have, which will
contain its configurations and will be openable by some common program.
And no, I'm talking about
pico/ed/whatever-other-text-editor-you-had-in-mind.
XML would do nicely here.
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:37:42 GMT
mlw wrote:
> GNOME is too unstable. I keep trying it, but it never seems to work
> right.
Interesting. I have the absolute opposite result than you....Gnome is
very stable for me whereas the versions of KDE I have
tends to get ahead of itself on startup and manages to crash itself
before even starting....leaving me with the very basic KDE
window manager with no desktop.
>> And OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) is the successor to StarOffice.
>
>
> I'll have to check that out.
I've never understood why you are so down on Applixware 5.0. It works
wonderfully for me. (Thinking out loud....I can't
help but to wonder if you're having Gnome/GTK+ problems if that is why
Applixware 5.0 doesn't work for you...seeing
that the Applixware 5.0 relies on the GTK library instead of Motif as in
previous versions).
Software patents...especially stupid/frivolous software patents....are a
real danger to technology.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:39:25 -0500
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Linux is based on Unix - a 30-year-old operating system. And it shows
> : it's age:
>
> : It uses liberally formatted text files for its configuration. This is
> : incredible inefficient - computers don't understand text files - they
> : much prefer binary files. Consider the CPU cycles required search a
> : file such as /etc/passwd as opposed to say an equivalent indexed
> : Oracle table.
>
> This was done for a reason. A human can create, read, and modify text
> files using any editor. He or she can't do the same with binary
> files.
>
> Config files are usually small, so efficiency is a lesser concern. It
> was even 30 years ago when storage was hundreds of thousands of times
> more expensive. It's an almost insignificant issue now.
>
> : The permissions available for files are archaic. This is highlighted
> : when you try to use nfs in a networked environment where many
> : different users and groups have different levels of access to a shared
> : resource. This is also emphasized by the use of the '.' to indicate a
> : hidden file and the lack of an archive bit which hinders backup
> : options.
>
> You can use a filesystem with ACL support if traditional UNIX
> permissions are inadequate for your needs.
>
> I haven't found this to be a huge problem in practice, although as a
> developer, not a sysadmin, it's possible that my experience doesn't
> reflect all the situations where a more finely-grained permission
> system might be helpful.
>
In 6 years of administration, I've NEVER come across a reason to
use ACL's...the ONLY one I can think of is to meet the security
requirements laid out in the Orange Book certification for use
by the CIA and the military intelligence services.
> : Unix does not by default encrypt incoming and outgoing data to and
> : from a network. There should be security alerts issued daily for
> : systems running nfs, ftp or telnet daemons.
>
> These protocols are insecure by design. Secure replacements exist for
> at least ftp and telnet (scp/ssh), and for NFS as well if I'm not
> mistaken. They should be used in any situation where security
> concerns exist.
>
> This is not an OS issue, since these are protocols, not operating
> system services (at least not services that are specific to any one
> OS).
>
> : There is a tremendous amount of legacy within a Unix system. This is
> : due more or less to the open nature of the system that prevents the
> : distributor of the OS making a major cleanup of the system. The
> : result of this is a large number of symbolic links within the file
> : system.
>
> There's a lot of legacy cruft, that's true. It doesn't get removed
> because removing it would do more harm than good.
>
> : The strength of Unix has always been its shell scripting language
> : combined with tools such as awk, sed, grep, egrep, etc. However I
> : notice that with the advent of languages such as Perl and Java people
> : are beginning to abandon these. Perl and Java can and have been
> : implemented on OS's other than Unix.
>
> In my view, the strength of UNIX is its philosophy of modularity: it's
> composed of small tools that do one thing (or a small group of related
> things) well, and can be combined in various ways to solve almost any
> conceivable problem.
Yup.
And shell scripts are merely ONE way of expressing that philosophy...
>
> Perl and Java complement the strengths of UNIX by serving as "glue"
> that can be used not only to create components but tie them together.
>
> Java has an additional strength: it's one of only a few environments
> that can be used to build distributed applications in a secure and
> portable fashion.
>
> UNIX survives to this day because no one has found a better (but
> compatible) way of doing the same sorts of things. It may not be the
> best design possible, but it certainly beats most of the other stuff
> out there.
Damn straight.
Unix/Linux, in its present form, is capable of replacing ALL of
Win(lose)dows simply by porting apps.
The reverse is not true.
>
> Joe
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:45:55 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Not true. You can use Windows in 4M. It works. It'll be slow, but then
> so will Linux in 4M if you plan to run any apps.
>
Yep, Win3.1 that is.
Still the best Windows around, does not crash as often as NT.
But the lack of apps is a little annoying, isn't it?
But starting from Win95 up, nope, you will not run those in 4M, much less
install them (I've tried once, no luck)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:47:06 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, it's not quite as simple as that. If you had a systen with 4MB of
> > memory, you could use Linux on it. To use it to run Windows, you'd
> > need to spend another $45, and for what gain?
>
> Not true. You can use Windows in 4M. It works. It'll be slow, but then so
> will Linux in 4M if you plan to run any apps.
You can not run a webserver on windows "nt" with 16 MB -
OTOH, I've run a Linux webserver on a 386 with 4 MB....
jjs
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
